bilibili_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return envelope and gives representative calls, but it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, or operation-specific preconditions such as the comments operation's dependency on the video aid. These are left to the schema or left implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads the purpose, and uses examples effectively. The return-format block is mildly redundant with the stated output schema, but it is short and does not significantly bloat the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich input schema and existence of an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the core behavior and how to invoke each mode. The main gaps are explicit sibling differentiation and higher-level behavioral caveats such as error handling and authentication, but these are not critical for a straightforward read-only inspector.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents aid, bvid, limit, and operation. The description adds only example calls, which illustrate valid parameter combinations but do not convey new meaning beyond the input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific action ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('a single Bilibili video'), and enumerates the three data categories: metadata, comments, or part list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_search, bilibili_explore, and bilibili_account by clearly scoping it to inspecting one video.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The examples show how to invoke each operation, and the schema operation descriptions add mode-level guidance such as 'comments needs the video aid' and 'pages returns the multi-part page list'. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like bilibili_transcript or bilibili_search, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.